Back
Grants to Robin Singh in UGC NET Paper Leak Case
The has granted to Robin Singh alias Robin, an accused in the massive CSIR-UGC NET examination paper leak case. Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal, in a detailed order dated , allowed the petition, holding that the mere gravity of allegations cannot justify continued when with identical roles have already been enlarged on and the trial is likely to take significant time.
The Paper Leak Operation and Robin Singh's Alleged Role
The case stems from an FIR registered on , at , under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 238(b), and 61 of the , along with Sections 10 and 11 of the . Acting on a tip-off about a planned leak of the CSIR-UGC NET question paper scheduled for , police monitored suspicious activity near . They observed a Tempo Traveller picking up students and later raided the "," where students were found in two rooms. The prime accused, Neeraj Kumar Dhanak, was allegedly explaining the paper to students, and Sachin was also present. Recoveries included question paper sets, a laptop, printers, and mobile phones.
Robin Singh was not named in the FIR and was not present at the spot. He was implicated solely on the of Ashish, with the allegation that he had provided the physical space—an under-renovation college building co-owned by six persons, including his wife—where the offence allegedly took place.
Arguments Before the Court
Petitioner's counsel, , submitted that Robin Singh had no knowledge of the intended use of the building and was falsely implicated. He highlighted that Sachin, arrested from the spot, had already been granted by the , on . Robin Singh had been in custody for over seven months (since ), the investigation was complete, and none of the 23 witnesses—all police officials—had been examined, indicating a long trial ahead.
The State, represented by , opposed , pointing to Robin Singh's and alleging he was a member of the paper-leak syndicate. The State argued that releasing him would send a wrong message given the gravity of the offence against the future of aspiring students.
Court's Reasoning and Key Observations
Justice Nagpal placed significant emphasis on the settled legal principles regarding the object of
. The Court quoted the well-established dictum:
"The object of
is to secure the
person in his trial. The object is neither
.
must be avoided unless the Court has reasons to believe that an accused will not be available to have trial. A man is deemed to be
and found guilty and
."
The Court noted that while the seriousness of the charge is a relevant consideration, it cannot be the sole factor. The fact that
Sachin, against whom identical allegations were levelled, had already been granted
was a crucial ground for parity. The Court observed:
"It would be improper for this Court to refuse
only on the nature of allegations, when
Sachin, against whom identical allegations were levelled has been allowed
by learned
."
Further, the Court highlighted the limited role attributed to Robin Singh—only arranging the venue based on a —and the completed investigation with no progress in witness examination. The petitioner's and the lack of any apprehension that he would or (who were all police officials) also weighed in his favour.
The Decision and Its Implications
Allowing the
petition
"without a comment on merits,"
Justice Nagpal ordered Robin Singh's release on
, subject to his furnishing adequate
and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The pending applications were also disposed of.
In a separate but related order, the same Bench also granted to Neeraj Kumar Dhanak, the alleged prime member of the syndicate who was caught red-handed at the spot. In Neeraj's case too, the Court applied the , noting that Sachin had been granted , the recovered question paper did not actually match the final exam paper, and the petitioner had clean antecedents and had been in custody for over ten months.
The twin orders underscore the High Court's insistence on the fundamental principle that is the rule and jail is the exception, even in high-profile cases involving examination leaks. The decision provides significant relief to the accused while the trial proceeds at its own pace.
